Fair and Just Courts

Opposing Carolyn Kuhl's Confirmation

Although she has not been as directly involved in other civil rights issues as she was during the Reagan Administration, two articles concerning employment discrimination that Kuhl authored when she was in private practice raise serious concerns about her philosophy toward protecting employees from non-merit based employment decisions as well as remedying discrimination. In one, Kuhl made clear that she is opposed to affirmative action, which she called “a divisive societal manipulation.” (Ashkenazy v. Liu, No. BC 149503).

Opposing Carolyn Kuhl's Confirmation

  • Trying to limit protection for whistleblowers
  • 2nd Hearing Confirms Case Against Priscilla Owen

    In her tenure on the Texas Supreme Court, Owen has written or joined a number of dissents that would have effectively rewritten or disregarded the law, usually to the detriment of ordinary citizens, including in cases dealing with discrimination and employee rights, environmental issues and public information rights, and consumer and citizen rights. Owen was questioned about her disturbing record on these issues at her first hearing, but her testimony did not dispel the concerns that her record had raised.

    Owen's Second Hearing Confirms Clear and Compelling Case Against Confirmation

    The Senate is debating the nomination of Priscilla Owen to a federal appeals court seat and Senate Republicans may try to force a vote this week. The Senate Judiciary Committee rejected her last year, and her re-nomination by President Bush is unprecedented. Read PFAW’s report about why the committee was right to reject this judicial activist then, and why the Senate should do so again.

    2nd Hearing Confirms Case Against Priscilla Owen

    In an effort to rehabilitate Owen’s failed nomination, Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch held another hearing for Justice Owen on March 13, 2003, even though he acknowledged that she had received a full and fair hearing last July. At the March 13 hearing, Senator Hatch, several other Republican senators, and Justice Owen tried to explain away three serious concerns that helped lead to the rejection of her nomination: the criticism by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and other Bush appointees to the Texas Supreme Court of a number of Owen’s frequent dissents and attempts at judicial activism; Owen’s judicial activism in attempting to impose additional barriers on the exercise of the right to reproductive choice; and Owen’s frequent dissents and efforts at judicial activism in favor of corporate and other interests in cases in which the majority had protected the rights of consumers and other citizens. As with her first hearing last year, however, the March 13 hearing failed to resolve, and instead reinforced, these serious concerns.

    2nd Hearing Confirms Case Against Priscilla Owen

    Much of Owen’s second hearing centered around an attempt by Senator Hatch and several of his Republican colleagues to dispel the conclusion evident from Justice Owen’s record that she is a right-wing judicial activist, a conclusion that played a significant role in the Judiciary Committee’s rejection of Owen’s confirmation.

    Senator Hatch’s Double Standards and Abuse of Power

    Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, frustrated that Democratic senators are resisting his effort to push President Bush’s appeals court nominees onto the bench with minimal scrutiny, is increasingly abusing the power of his chairmanship to flagrantly violate or unilaterally change longstanding committee rules and bipartisan agreements that govern the Judiciary Committee’s deliberative process

    The Blue Slip Policy

    In the past, Hatch has been a fervent supporter of the Senate’s “blue slip” policy, which has allowed home-state senators who object to a judicial nominee to delay action in the Judiciary Committee by not returning a nominee’s “blue slip” to the committee. As American Prospect has noted, “it was Hatch, in 1995, who hardened the blue-slip policy to allow a single senator to block a nomination indefinitely.” Indeed, Sen. Hatch made his blue slip policy explicit in 1998 by stating on the blue slips themselves that “[n]o further proceedings on this nominee will be scheduled until both blue slips have been returned by the nominee’s home state senators.” Now, however, Hatch has apparently declared a new policy saying that even though a senator’s decision not to return a blue slip would be given great weight, it would not be allowed to prevent Hatch from moving nominees he wants to move. “In other words,” says Hatch, “we can go ahead with certain nominees where you might have a withheld blue slip.” Sen. Barbara Boxer in particular has objected to proceeding on controversial nominee Carolyn Kuhl, regarding whom Boxer has not returned her blue slip, but indications from Hatch are that he will proceed on the nomination, in blatant contradiction of his own policy.

    Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious